Desh Deshpande's Lessons for Life

This blog was written by Rajit Kamal in the TiE Leadership Program when we invited Desh to speak at the Leadership Program. It was such an insightful evening, I had to reproduce the blog here.

Desh Deshpande needs no introduction. Serial entrepreneur and founder or mentor to many for-profit (Cascade, Sycamore, Tejas, A123, Airvana, Sandstone Capital) and non-profit organizations (Deshpande Foundation, Deshpande Center @ MIT, Akshaya Patra) Desh spent almost 2 hours with the SRA’s yesterday (April 16th, 2008). It was an open session with Desh talking about his life’s journey, his entrepreneurial journey and taking questions from Senior Associates (in the Leadership Program).

It was a very inspiring session and we were all fast forwarding our lives by 30 years and imagining ourselves in his shoes!! But his journey was not easy and it won’t be easy for any aspiring entrepreneur (like the SRA’s). However, Desh’s pearls of wisdom would definitely better prepare us to deals with the bumps in the road as we start driving down the highway of entrepreneurship.

Desh’s Pearls of Wisdom

Keep good company: Remember your mother telling you when you were growing up “make friends with good people”. If you ignored the advice then, it is time to follow it now. Keeping company of good and smart people not only helps you grow as a person but it also opens unexpected doors and creates opportunities. Desh mentioned that a professor whom he met at graduate school offered him a job at Motorola in Toronto. Desh’s experience at Motorola proved to be the foundation for his entrepreneurial journey.

Have a good gut feel and go by your gut: Big life decisions like marriage, having children, quitting job to start a company etc. cannot be made by any process as the unknowns overpower the knowns when one is making the decision. It is critical to go by your gut in making these critical decisions. There is no training to “improve your gut feel” but it gets better with experience and also learning from other’s experience. Desh talked about his decision to leave a cushy job at Motorola and plunge into the uncertain world of entrepreneurship. It was not easy as he had a family to support (two kids) but he went by his gut instincts.

Have high tolerance for pain: Entrepreneurship is not bed of roses. The success stories we read are few and far between the numerous failure stories. Those who succeed have high tolerance for pain and are focused. Desh talked about ups and downs of his career and the importance of having the guts to take risk and the tolerance to take a hit, which in inevitable in any entrepreneurial journey.

Humility to make corrections in the planned course: Entrepreneurs by nature are driven and believe very strongly in their idea and business plan. More often than not, initial plans are wrong. Sometimes one gets stuck in a job or a situation which does not fit the personality or values of the individual. Having the humility to recognize the mistake and correcting it is extremely important for future success and having a fulfilling career. Desh’s first start up (funded by a VC) did not go well, but Desh quickly left the start up and went on to found Cascade systems which was a major success.Enjoying and being passionate about what you are doing: One has to enjoy the journey of entrepreneurship. Initial days would be tough as you would be short of cash. “You should never feel that you are sacrificing” as that would mean you are not doing where your heart is. One has to enjoy the ups and downs of the journey.

Set deadlines: As an entrepreneur, one should set deadlines and work to achieve them. If you fail then it is the time to step back and change the course. For example, one could say - I will work on this idea and get VC funding within 9 months. If it does not happen then probably the idea is not good enough. It is probably time to look for another opportunity.

Value “Hunger” more than “Experience”: Desh said that when hiring people, look for people who have “potential and hunger” than experience. He feels that “hunger” would trump experience any day. People who have done things over and over again get bored and that would impact their productivity. Desh has started many companies and not for profits. In each, he looks for someone young and hungry, who has the potential but needs some mentoring to be successful.

“Unshackle” your life: If you are planning entrepreneurship down the road, it is important to lead a very simple life. In America, people sometimes shackle their lives with huge mortgages etc. Maintaining low cost of living would make it easier to jump into entrepreneurship.

Good VCs are an insurance policy: If you are starting your first company, try to get funding from the top VC’s. Even if they take higher portion of equity, having big names backing you would prove to be very helpful in the long run. These VCs are like an insurance policy. They will work hard to ensure that you are successful and get an exit.

Inner strength is more important than any other trait: When asked what soft skills you look for in an entrepreneur? Desh said “Inner Strength: the ability to take risks, tolerate pain and self –confidence”. Soft skills like presenting and selling are important, but its more important to have this inner strength. Desh observed that there are many successful entrepreneurs who don't dress or present well, sometimes cannot put a coherent sentence together, yet are extremely successful entrepreneurs.

The MBA: Desh said an MBA is good training, so if one has the opportunity, one should do it. Desh talked about the success of Brontes, the Deshpande Center company that was sold to 3M. He said that the company used HBS students to explore 34 different markets, before they came to the one that made sense for the company to enter - and it turned out to be a big success.

India vs. US: If you are debating between starting a company in India or US, Desh says “India is a great place to be an entrepreneur. There is lot of excitement and activity.” So, those of you who are debating between Boston or San Francisco to start your company might want to add “Bangalore” to the mix!

An inspiring evening.

Making LinkedIn useful

I've been on LinkedIn for years (an early adopter). For my undergrad alumni we created a group that now has 600 people connected through it.

However, with over a thousand personal contacts on LinkedIn, and access to an internal alumni network, I've yet to see value in visiting the website.

The LinkedIn Dashboard: How come no one has heard of it ?

However, I did discover something very useful. How come no one knows the LinkedIn Outlook toolbar.

1. The "Grab" feature allows me to transfer anyone's signature into Outlook Contacts. This is the "killer app" of LinkedIn.

2. The dashboard allows me to get personal email IDs and synch up so I always have updated information after they leave their organizations.

3. The dashboard searches through my Outlook email and offers to create new contacts for recently emailed who are not in my contacts.

4. Any changes to my LinkedIn contacts are available for synching into my Outlook calendar. This is really useful because it allows me to track people who have moved or gotten promoted.

Make LinkedIn Useful: Please upgrading it to Web 2.0
LinkedIn is showing signs of age. Here's my proposal to LinkedIn to "upgrade" itself to a post-Facebook world.

1. Let people type in search words (e.g. venture capital, panel or or wireless) and when there's "Google News" related to these people, let it show up in the dashboard
2. Let people in your network follow you (Twitter-like)
3. Find a way to let people broadcast what they're doing (Faceb00k-like)
4. Actively track and provide newsfeeds on people (ZoomInfo-like)
5. Turn the Grab into an active search. If you find anything in email that looks like a signature, give the user an option to put it into Outlook

These will make our lives a little better. Please forward this link to them folks there.

Thanks.

2008 Venture Capital Investment Competition

The Venture Capital Investment Competition ended this weekend at the University of North Carolina. It is a national event, and (if you’re at MIT) up to 20 teams taking part to represent their colleges at the regionals, and one team from each region advances to the finals. I was fortunate to be a judge at the regional VCIC held at MIT Sloan, which was won by Wharton in a group that faced very stiff competition. Wharton was unique in winning because while there were stronger teams with technical expertise in venture capital, the Wharton team showed uncanny operational expertise. From what I read about the Finals (which I did not have the bandwidth to attend), the Wharton team did well again, thinking outside the box, but was unable to win the competition - but they did get the Entrepreneur's Choice Award.

MIT Sloan won for the 2^nd year in a row. I did not get a chance to see the MIT Sloan team in action (since they did not take part in the Boston regional so they would not have a home-team advantage). However, the strength of entrepreneurship and venture capital at MIT is clear. The winning team of Bob Meese, Sim Blaustein, Gaetan Bonhomme, Nikhil Garg and Eric Varma.

University of Washington and University of North Carolina placed 2^nd and 3^rd respectively.

We should certainly credit to the entrepreneurs, without whom there would be no competition. The entrepreneurs for once are in the drivers seat, though they are still potentially selling to the judges, who are mostly VCs. The VCIC finals had 20 VCs, so it was a great opportunity for the entrepreneurs. Its actually fun to see the VCs selling their firms to the entrepreneurs !

I noticed that Widetronix, a Cornell startup, showed up at the finals. Good for them to get on the road. Since ultimately this competition is good training for any entrepreneur (since they get to see the business from the other side), I hope it was worthwhile for all of them. The stats are certainly in favor of the entrepreneur. According to Patrick Vernon, who has been running this competition for years out of UNC, he sent a recent email that said: “As a former judge, you know the value of VCIC to presenting entrepreneurs, but did you know that 40% of the entrepreneurs selected to present at the Finals go on to raise an average of $9M in venture capital.”

To read more about VCIC click here.

2008 Cornell Business Idea Competition Winners

The impressive winners of the Business Idea Competition 2008 came from a wide range of sectors. Internet, Lifesciences, Automotive and Energy. However, the themes were common - green with a dash of life sciences. Congratulations to all the entrepreneurs and innovators.

1. Free Green: A new online business for green residential buildings
2. GeneWeave: A point-of-care diagnostic company
3. The Hundred (a new green car) and ESP Solar (invention to improve solar panel efficiencies)

In case you wish to contact these companies, please email Gwen. She is at gmg25 AT cornell.edu. The Johnson School is responsible for hosting the competition. More information can be found on
http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/brv/bicinfo.html

The problem with business plan competitions (and why I like Cornell's)

This week was Entrepreneurship Week @ Cornell. For the second year in a row, I've judged the Business Plan Competition.

I love going to Cornell for this event for three reasons.

Firstly, its my alma mater, and the event is full of energy and excitement of Cornellians coming home.

Secondly, the judging event is a combination of grilling the entrepreneurs and providing them with a lot of advice at the same it. If you are "mentorable" and your idea is "fundable" we want to see you get a Series A round of financing, and we'll work hard to try and make it happen.

Lastly, and most importantly, ideas show up that are potentially venture fundable.

So now onto the real reason for this post. I've participated in business plan competitions, not only as a judge, but also as a participant. I've even won a couple.

What I've realized in hindsight is that winning a business plan competition only incrementally improves your odds of having a successful business, versus not winning one. You get a check and the money is sometimes substantial. (We won $25K which allowed us to launch the company). However, for the most part, after the competition you're still stuck with the same problem.

I call it: "That's-great. Now-what-do-I-do."

Winners realize this after winning the competition. I was surprised that venture capitalists or investors weren't lining up to fund the business. There were no angels or foundations at the competition who would really have given us the money we really needed. I also don't know what the judges really meant when they said I was a winner. Is it because:

a) We had an original idea
b) We had done the most homework and did a great job answering your questions
c) We had the best presentation
d) We had a great management team and were the most likely to succeed

Having been on the other side, dynamics of each group differ. Groups of judges may pick the winners for completely different reasons. The most useful information I have realized is to find out:

a) what the judges really think about the fundability of my plan; and
b) what do I need to do (or more importantly, who do I need to call) to build a company.

So to all of you dreaming of the phones ringing off the hook after you win the high profile international business plan competitions, I have one message.

Stop dreaming.

Use the day to identify people at the competition who liked your idea and will be willing to spend time with you. Akamai (a company that did not win the MIT50K, although it was a semi-finalist) became a big company. I don't remember who won that year. Go to several business plan competitions to find judges who find what you are doing intriguing, and are able to pass on contacts that will create a big company.

Especially go to competitions where angels show up. Or where you have a connection.

At Cornell, almost all the judges went to Cornell. There is a shared passion to make things happen long after the check has been cashed, the congratulations have been sent, and the partying has ended.

For those of you who organize business plan competitions, create task forces that include the resources of your school, alums, and judges, so you can help the winners and finalists take the necessary steps to:

a) fix their plans
b) augment their management teams
c) raise research and commercialization grants from Government and Private Foundations
d) get access to angels and
e) eventually get Series A funding

I hope the Big Red Venture Managers at Cornell can create such a culture this year. The entrepreneurs are best served if every competition becomes this way. Then we will accelerate the pace of innovation and make the world a more interesting place. Business plan competitions will become a real way to find the next big ideas. More young people, researchers and innovators will be inspired to dream big.

Cornell's efforts over the next year may yet create a model. Time will tell.

Sameer Bhatia's death: What we must do

It is tragic that Sameer Bhatia died on March 27, 2008. He was diagnosed with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML), and died after a courageous battle in Seattle. Sameer was an accomplished Silicon Valley entrepreneur. The courage that Sameer, his wife Reena, their parents, and all their friends showed in finding every possible solution to help him, is indeed inspiring to us all. The only way we can help Sameer's cause is to work on the Asian bone marrow registry and to continue to fund research for cancer by giving generously and encouraging the innovators and researchers who are spending a lifetime to rid us of this disease.

May he rest in peace.

Visit http://www.helpsameer.org/

So you want to be a venture capitalist

While being successful as an entrepreneur is one path to venture capital, it is not the only one. Good investors need not be good entrepreneurs and vice versa. The important thing is that a venture capitalist must understand and respect what the entrepreneur does, realize what a tough job it is, and be able to add significant value to increase the chances of success for the entrepreneur.

To join venture capital, it is important to show that you exhibit behavior that is typical of someone who is or should be in the business of investing and building companies. venture firms need Associates and Principals to process and execute deals, and support the work that Partners do in building companies, and these Associates and Principals are (sometimes but more often than not) successful entrepreneurs.

What is ultimately important is to understand whether you are good at investing, and have a mind-set for helping growing companies. By answering these questions for yourself, you can demonstrate that you have an understanding of the business, and what it means, even though you may never have stepped inside a venture firm.

Since I get asked this question all the time, I thought I’d put together a list of questions particularly for the younger (sub-35 crowd) who are not in venture capital but want to get into the industry. You can use these questions as a set of proactive responses to provide to someone about what you’ve done to become relevant, or as a list of action items of things to do if you really want to get in.

QUESTIONS (IN INCREASING ORDER OF IMPORTANCE)

Fundamental Skills

• Have you ever written a business plan (powerpoint alone is sufficient)
• Have you taken part in a business plan competition. If so, how did you do and who was on your team. Did you win ?
• Have you built an excel model showing financial projections of a business to a detailed level. Do you understand the revenue drivers of the company ?
• Have you taken classes in venture capital and/or entrepreneurship
• What do you think are the three most important personal characteristics or skills for being a successful VC
• What are the three most important characteristics of being a successful
• entrepreneur

Skills in Financing and Investing

• Have you read any books written by entrepreneurs or VCs.
• What is your favorite sector to invest in - explain your investment thesis and why this sector will make money
• If you’ve never invested in the private sector, have you made any public sector investments ? What stocks are you picking and why (this could be a parallel to show that you can think like an investor)
• What are the most important terms in venture deals. Are you familiar with the basic terms of VC deals. Could you read a term sheet ?

Knowledge: Markets & Companies

• What are the most interesting VC deals in recent times that you know of
• Have you done a detailed market reviews, studied different business models of startups and the problems they are solving, and tried to understand how they intend (or are) making money ?
• Do you have detailed knowledge of a sector (global) especially the startups in that sector ? Are there any startups that you like. If so, why do you like them ?
• Do you have any business ideas of your own ? Can you pitch them to me in 30 seconds ?

Actions: Entrepreneurship

• Have you helped anyone start a company. What did you do for them and what happened to the venture. What was your contribution ?
• Have you ever invented a product or been a part of that creative process ?
• Have you started a company or entrepreneurial venture of any kind

Relevant Experience

• Have you ever raised money for someone
• Are you strong technically ? (Engineering, Science or Medical degrees) ?
• How large or diverse is your rolodex ? How strong is your network. Do you know people who can open doors. If not, do you display characteristics of someone who can build a strong network. Would you be good at Human Resources / Headhunting ?
• Have you ever sold anything ? If not, do you have marketing and business development experience or an understanding of these functions (for late stage companies)

I am sure all VCs will have different perspectives, and this is one of many. However, I hope it is useful.

The Oncology Revolution: Feb 28 event at Harvard Medical School

I attended an excellent oncology event at Harvard Medical School recently, organized jointly with TiE Boston’s Lifesciences & Healthcare Group (which I co-chair) and the Harvard Biotechnology Club. The event was organized by Pushwaz Virk, Anna Chodos and Kanchan Mirchandani, with support from Jugnu Jain. There were several presentations, and a panel discussion. The presenters and panelists included:

• Steven Tregay, Managing Director, Novartis Option Fund
• Mara Aspinall, President, Genzyme Genetics
• George Demetri, Director of the Ludwig Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
• Elan Ezickson, Chief Business Officer, AVEO
• Mike Boss, Chief Business Officer, Xanthus Pharmaceuticals
• Janina Longtine, Chief of Molecular Diagnostics, Brigham and Women's Hospital

I’ve provided highlights from some very informative presentations, discussions and Q&A.

Thanks to our understanding of oncology, the 5-year survival rates in cancer have improved to 70%. Targeted therapeutics represent 66% of revenues (even though they represent only 40% of all drugs on the market).

• 2001: 15% drugs were targeted therapeutics
• 2006: 40% drugs were targeted therapeutics
• 2010: 60% drugs are going to be targeted therapeutics

Sidney Taurel, Chairman & CEO of Eli Lilly believes that targeted therapeutics can significantly drive up market share. Without compannion diagnostics, a cancer drug's market share would likely remain at 10-20% of a larger base. With companion diagnostics, the market share can rise to 80-95% of the nice; and provide 200-400% more revenues from the product depending on the niche covered.

There are currently 60 clinical trials for products that are already on the market in oncology that are recruiting for biomarkers. So interest in biomarkers is clearly growing.

However, the discovery process in Oncology is high-risk. Of all the oncology drugs that go into clinical trials, failure rates are high. Unfortunately in oncology, failure rates are high at Phase 2 and 3, which means a lot of money has to be spent before efficacy can be proven. To counter this risk, startups should go after multiple cancers at the same time, thereby improving their possible outcomes. However, ”Patient targeting continues to be a black box.”

• Phase 1: 60% success (move to next phase)
• Phase 2: 30% success (move to next phase)
• Phase 3: 40% success (move to next phase)
• Regulation: 70% success (move to market)

Oncology is a crowded marketplace with hundreds of drugs in development. Competition is intense, but that should not dissuade innovators and researchers. Genentech, the 800-lb gorilla in oncology drugs was in trouble not too long ago. Genentech raised $35MM in 1980, and produced four products since then. 1996 – Rituxan approval (was discovered at Idec), 1998 – Herceptin, 2004 – Avastin and 2004 – Tarceva. Two of Genentech's blockbuster drugs weren't even discovered there. So focus on the size of the market opportunity and the large unmet need.

There was a good discussion around standardization of diagnostic tests and innovation. One panelist said that even if Her 2 was arguably not the best antibody for Herceptin, it was the first. Instead, Fish tests may be better (in-situ hybridization) but these remain hard to implement and read. The panelists cautioned that the diagnostic should not be tied to the drug too early, or patients end up with sub-optimal tests with little innovation.

There is a problem with companion diagnostics. There is no standardization in the labs. When companies say – “Look for a 3-log reduction”, no one does it because they don’t know what this really means. The tests are not repeatable. RNA degenerates fast, so tests that involve RNA cannot be transported far. There is no input from industry on standardization of these tests. This makes it hard to scale. Pharma and diagnostics companies should focus efforts on creating standards at the labs. Home brews in particular should be treated with caution. Secretary of HHS says that there should be some oversight. ASCO/CAS said that Her2 Testing standards need to be adopted. Everyone in the industry is adopting the tests; need to drive standardization in the way people understand and use them.

The good thing is that we’re finally getting smart about discovery in cancer. Biopharma is one of the last things that America does well. In fact, we can tell now if we’ve hit the tumor target with six hours; this is real innovation. However, diagnostics are important but remain a challenge.

Europe is changing the way we pay for drugs. In the UK recently there was a landmark agreement where Velcade was approved for Multiple Myeloma. However, it came with a twist. The UK government said if it does not work, it would not pay ! Panelists agreed that companies should be incentivized to do deals like this, which would change corporate behavior and raise the bar on the drugs that are pushed by the pharma companies.

There was a final word on clinical trials. There has to be a reduction in patient trials; FDA data needs are staggering - and rising with the recent withdrawals (read Vioxx). Finding companion diagnostics may be that way forward - because 700 patient studies at $30,000 each are inelegant and extremely inexpensive. Since every cancerous tumor is unique, innovators must find better ways to identify the right patients and hit those targets. We need more structure-guided drug discovery, and it should be used on every every project.

Excellent presentations from Xanthus and Aveo Pharma.

What we love about India

This presentation is intended to give you a quick snapshot of the country and the most important things that the country cares about, in less than 10 minutes. Download it here.

The business of cricket: The $2 billion Indian Premier League

Recently, India officially created the Indian Premier League for cricket. Its a bit like the soccer premier league in the UK, the NBA and the NFL in the USA. Since India is a cricket crazy nation, I expect that some of these teams will take on the brand, valuations and cache of global brands like the Yankees, Manchester United and the Lakers.

Its unprecendented, because the league overnight has become worth $ 2 billion. Sony Entertainment paid $1 billion to acquire the rights for the next 10 years. Owners have pumped in another $1 billion to buy each of the 8 teams. I am sure this number will rise to 20 teams, as other cities get in the game.

The money has been used to "acquire" (not sure what this means) and auction 80 international players. (Note: In international cricket, there are 8 teams of note, and 11 players per team, so basically all the top world players will probably be here). I wouldn't be surprised. Several players will make a million dollars for 44 days of work. Quite attractive.

When you want to see where the money is in sport, follow the TV rights. India controls the money in world cricket, simply due to its population, and when a person gets into the Indian cricket team (the sport has 11 players on a team), he becomes an instant millionaire, as the franchise deals are significant.

While Australia may be the world's best cricket team, 17 million viewers means that Aussie cricketers won't get rich playing cricket at home. Neither does anyone (even in England) pay attention to the irrelevant 4-day county matches in England, where top star was paid $1.6 million.

However, the Indian cricket league will change all that, and its a long-overdue development coming twenty years after Kerry Packer, the Aussie, created a rebel league in Australia. This one, unlike that, has real money and will result in a giant sucking sound, pulling top-ranked cricketers from around the world, to play in India. Its just a beginning, but NBA-style long-term contracts will start to dominate the sport, once the game gets underway.

Cricket is an eccentricity the world does not understand. How can one play for 5 days and yet not produce a result. The game changed when we went to the 50 overs-a-side, 1-day games. However the new format introduced this year to the YouTube generation has been the real hit that will drive adoption. Twenty20 is twenty overs a side, and gets done in 3.5 hours. Everyone gets it, because we all grew up playing 20-over matches. We understand the excitement and the tension of twenty overs, and the recent World Cup (that India won) shows it. Superbowl and Baseball games are 3-4 hours long.

The Indian Premier League has announced the following owners of the new teams (valued from $50MM - $100MM)

• Mumbai ($119MM) - Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries


• Delhi ($84MM) - GMR Group


• Kolkata ($76MM) - Bollywood icon Shah Rukh Khan’s Red Chillies Entertainment


• Bangalore - Vijay Mallya’s UB Group


• Hyderabad ($107MM) - Deccan Chronicle


• Jaipur ($67MM) - Emerging Media


• Chennai ($91MM) - India Cements


• Mohali ($76MM) - Film star Preity Zinta and Bombay Dyeing scion Ness Wadia

VC and PE firms like DLF Private Equity, Temasek, India Value Fund, Macquarie Bank, Deutsche Bank and ICICI Venture wanted to get in the race. I guess these valuations were out of control for these teams.

For sports teams to return their significant investments, they require stadiums, significant investments in buying players, a good merchandising and ticket-selling strategy, and ultimately a winning track record. In the US, teams move to the towns that will subsidize their stadiums. I doubt this will happen in India, so fiscal discipline is more likely.

Sports is not great business for its owner as investments, but its good for the ego, and sports team prices will rise significantly with the fortunes of India's emerging billionaires. If we look at the US and UK for lessons, this has been a low cash-flow business because of the significant amounts of money that need to spent to buy the best players, and the amounts needed to build stadiums. However, valuations remain high, because owning sports teams are a dream for the mega-rich, and I suspect that in India, if the league is executed right, that it won't provide venture returns, but it'll do decently with at least 2x-4x for its investors. We'll have to wait on the red herring from a public IPO to learn about the business.

Its going to all lie in the execution. For now, let the games begin.

My 2007 Readings

How Doctors Think - Jerome Groopman
Complications: A surgeon's notes on an imperfect science - Atul Gawande
Three Billion New Capitalists: The Great Shift of Wealth and Power to the East - Clyde Prestowitz
True North: Discover Your Authentic Leadership - Bill George
War on the Middle Class - Lou Dobbs
Mr China: A Memoir - Tim Clissold
Palestine: Peace not Apartheid - Jimmy Carter
Room to Read: Why I left Microsoft to Change the World - John Wood
Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty - Mohammed Yunus

FICTION
Life of Pi - Yann Martel

Mr Banker

12 Nov 2007, Times of India

Anupendra Sharma shares his experience of studying in three top institutes across countries.

It was 1992 in Manchester, UK. My application for burger-flipping had just been turned down by McDonalds in the midst of a recession. It was a character-building experience as I ended up in a Pakistani restaurant chopping vegetables, lugging flour on the streets and cleaning dishes.
However, my stubborn resolve to pay my way through my Masters degree crumbled that first weekend. I was exhausted from working 12 hours a night at 80 pence an hour. When the University gave me a job shelving books for 5.50 pound an hour, I was relieved that I could keep my promise.

I used my 99 percentile GMAT, above-average BITS Pilani grades, a well-written essay, and resume with interesting summer and extra-curricular experiences to get accepted into the 25-strong, one-year Masters in Accounting and Finance programme at Manchester Business School. I had no prior background in the subject.

Remembering the McDonalds rejection, I applied for 100 jobs, filling every one of the four-page applications by hand. I was living by Andy Grove's philosophy that `Only the paranoid survive.' I researched every company that interviewed me in great detail and my first offer came on
December 8,1992,and I was proud to have five offers by the time the recruiting season ended, although only two classmates were employed. I observed that Indians in other Masters and MBA programmes had offers as well. Indians generally fare better than most international student groups in finding jobs, even in adverse economic conditions.

I joined London-based auditor at Pricewaterhouse for a year, and then moved as a financial analyst on the core team launching Ford in India and China. It was exciting. But, I was still keen to pursue my dream of an Ivy League MBA.

I made two mistakes in applying. Firstly, I applied early with two years of experience at two different companies. Secondly, I knew little about the MBA a d m i s s i o n s process. I thought my rank and my high GMAT would get me in. I was lucky when Cornell called.

The US MBA was very different compared to the UK. I immersed myself in school, tried different things and led initiatives. I started a shrimp farm in Central America, taught three classes, worked during summers at McKinsey London, learnt to fly a plane, worked as a computer consultant, assisted the career office, and racked up $90,000 in loans even with B-school jobs and summer internships. But more importantly, I met my wife, a classmate at Cornell. When I graduated, I pursued my dream of working on Wall Street with several investment banking offers.

B-school taught me many hard skills, but more importantly soft skills that included networking, leadership, entrepreneurship, presentations, communications and golf - the skills that carry us through our careers. If you can combine these skills with integrity, tenacity, hard work,
patience and good humour, with a dash of good luck, the MBA degree has the potential to achieve all of your dreams.